If I were brought to the ER for alcohol intoxication by ambulance, in california, then woke up requesting to leave, what exactly are my rights? If an IV line is in my arm, and a nurse disconnects the line from the pole but leaves the needle in my arm, and I tell her to take it out but she refuses, stating the doctor won’t let her remove it until my BAC drops to 0.08, is this legal? If I try to leave with the needle in my hand, reiterating I want the needle out and i’m told they won’t do it, and when I attempt to leave regardless, does that allow security to physically tackle and detain me, then physically restrain me to my bed?
I believe that legally they are not only supposed to remove the entire IV, but also not physically prevent me from leaving. They may call the cops if they feel i’m intoxicated and a danger to myself, but not physically prevent me from leaving.
I believe by not removing the IV from my hand purposefully until my BAC is 0.08, then physically stopping me from leaving when I try to leave with the needle in my arm, that they are simply trying to avoid liability in case I left and got hit by a car or whatever, by saying they only physically stopped me from leaving because the IV was still attached in my arm. I believe california state law forbids a patient from leaving a hospital with an IV attached, but doesn’t give security personnel cause to physically stop the patient.
Can anyone provide clarification or links regarding this issue? I am unable to find anything.
But the ER doing these things to avoid liability is ridiculous. Their responsibility and legal actions should only of been to call the police and document my AMA status right?
I’m not a lawyer or any kind of medical professional, but I watch a lot of Law and Order and the various emergency room “reality” shows.
A person can sign out AMA if he/she is competent to make that decision. Being intoxicated, whether from alcohol or drugs (legal or otherwise), or for any other reason in an altered mental state renders a person incompetent.
What difference would it make if an IV line is still attached?
Over here, if a nurse sticks a needle in you without permission it’s assault. It’s OK if you are unable (drunk/unconscious/gibbering) to give permission, but as soon as you are able, they will shove a consent form under your nose and a pen in your hand.
If you steadfastly refuse consent, and they don’t easily give up, they will remove the cannula and escort you off the premises. They will want you to sign a document absolving them from blame, but can’t force you.
In general a legal document signed while intoxicated is null and void.
The specifics of exactly how intoxicated is too intoxicated depends on local case and code law.
Since the nurse named a specific BAC target, it’s very likely that particular hospital’s policy is to insist on informed and competent consent before releasing AMA. And legally speaking that consent can’t possibly be given until *intoxicated *gives way to competent as the patient sobers up.
Unsurprisingly, ERs deal with intoxicated folks often and this problem and this policy have been tested before. And has probably been carefully vetted by the hospital’s legal department. To be sure, they’re going to err on the side of avoiding liability to themselves, rather than making the customer happy. But they’re inherently trapped between liability for early release versus liability for unwanted treatment and *de facto *confinement.
That hospital policy may or may not be fully in accord with CA case and code law. But it’s going to be a very uphill fight to prove it’s not.
In some places, an intoxicated person may be held in a secure unit and, depending upon circumstances, not be allowed to leave until talking to a social worker.